Short- and Long-Term Results of Open Versus Laparoscopic Appendectomy

H.A. Swank, E.J. Eshuis, M.I. van Berge Henegouwen, W.A. Bemelman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

56 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Clinical advantages of laparoscopic appendectomy have been shown in numerous trials and reviews. Most of these advantages are small and of limited clinical relevance, while laparoscopic operation costs are reported to be higher. The present study compares short- and long-term results of conventional appendectomy with or without diagnostic laparoscopy (OA), and laparoscopic appendectomy (LA). All adult patients who underwent appendectomy in our institution from 1995 to 2005 were included retrospectively. Patient data were retrieved from medical records, questionnaires sent by mail, and records of general practitioners. Primary outcome parameters were long-term complications, readmissions, and reinterventions (> 30 days postoperatively). Secondary outcome parameters were short-term complications, readmissions, and reinterventions (a parts per thousand currency sign30 days postoperatively). A total of 755 patients were included, 545 of whom underwent OA, with the remaining 210 undergoing LA. In the long term there were few complications noted, and there were no significant differences in complications between the two groups. Within 30 days postoperatively, LA was associated with a significantly higher incidence of abdominal abscesses with consequent diagnostic investigations, interventions, and readmissions. Although laparoscopic appendectomy is known to deliver clinical advantages, it is associated with a higher incidence of abdominal abscesses. Because the procedure is about to become the standard of care, future research must be directed at solving this issue. The expected lower incidence of incisional hernia and small bowel obstruction after laparoscopic appendectomy was not shown in the present study
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1221-1226
JournalWorld journal of surgery
Volume35
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2011

Cite this